The Implications of Primate Behavioral Flexibility for Sustainable Human–Primate Coexistence in Anthropogenic Habitats

Home , Arunachal macaque, Booted macaque, Siberut macaque, Tibetan macaque

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Oxford Brookes University: RADAR

1 THE IMPLICATIONS OF PRIMATE BEHAVIORAL FLEXIBILITY FOR SUSTAINABLE

2 HUMAN–PRIMATE COEXISTENCE IN ANTHROPOGENIC HABITATS

4 Matthew R. McLennan1,2, Noemi Spagnoletti3,4, Kimberley J. Hockings1,5

5 1 Anthropology Centre for Conservation, Environment and Development, Oxford Brookes University,

6 Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK

7 2 Bulindi Chimpanzee and Community Project, PO Box 245, Hoima, Uganda.

8 3 Department of Experimental Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of São Paulo, São

9 Paulo, Brazil

10 4 Unit of Cognitive Primatology and Primate Center, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies,

11 CNR, Rome, Italy

12 5 Centre for Research in Anthropology (CRIA-FCSH/UNL), Lisbon, 1069-061, Portugal.

15 Running title: Primates in anthropogenic habitats

17 Corresponding author:

18 Dr Matthew McLennan

19 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,

20 Oxford Brookes University,

21 Oxford OX3 0BP,

22 United Kingdom

23 Email: [email protected]

24 ABSTRACT

25 People are an inescapable aspect of most environments inhabited by nonhuman primates today.

26 Consequently, interest has grown in how primates adjust their behavior to live in anthropogenic

27 habitats. However, our understanding of primate behavioral flexibility and the degree to which it will

28 enable primates to survive alongside people in the long-term remains limited. This Special Issue

29 brings together a collection of papers that extend our knowledge of this subject. In this introduction,

30 we first review the literature to identify past and present trends in research, then introduce the

31 contributions to this Special Issue. Our literature review confirms that publications on primate

32 behavior in anthropogenic habitats, including interactions with people, increased markedly since the

33 2000s. Publications concern a diversity of primates but include only 17% of currently recognized

34 species, with certain primates over-represented in studies (e.g., chimpanzees and macaques).

35 Primates exhibit behavioral flexibility in anthropogenic habitats in various ways, most commonly

36 documented as dietary adjustments (i.e., incorporation of human foods including agricultural crops

37 and other exotic plants, and provisioned items) and differences in activity, ranging, grouping

38 patterns, and social organization, associated with changing anthropogenic factors. Publications are

39 more likely to include information on negative rather than positive or neutral interactions between

40 humans and primates. The contributions to this Special Issue include both empirical research and

41 reviews that examine various aspects of the human–primate interface. Collectively, they show that

42 primate behavior in shared landscapes does not always conflict with human interests, and

43 demonstrate the value of examining behavior from a cost–benefit perspective without making prior

44 assumptions concerning the nature of interactions. Careful interdisciplinary research has the

45 potential to greatly improve our understanding of the complexities of human–primate interactions,

46 and is crucial for identifying appropriate mechanisms to enable sustainable human–primate

47 coexistence in the 21st Century and beyond.

49 Keywords: Anthropocene, behavioral adaptability, behavioral plasticity, ethnoprimatology, human-

50 dominated landscapes, human–wildlife interactions

51 INTRODUCTION

52 Flexible behavior – sometimes referred to as ‘adaptability’ or ‘plasticity’, although these terms are

53 not strictly synonyms (Strier 2017) – evolves in response to heterogeneous environments (Jones

54 2005). An animal’s ability to adjust its behavior under changing conditions can determine its survival

55 in a fast-changing world dominated by humans (Wong and Candolin 2015). Until quite recently, how

56 nonhuman primates (hereafter referred to as ‘primates’) respond behaviorally to human-induced

57 environmental changes and increased contact with people was not a primary focus of research (but

58 see Horrocks and Hunte 1986; Kavanagh 1980; Maples et al. 1976 for early examples of such work).

59 However, rapid human population growth and associated land-use changes such as agriculture and

60 urbanization are transforming primate habitats (Estrada et al. 2012; McKinney 2015). Consequently,

61 much field primatology today is conducted in ‘anthropogenic habitats’, a broad term which is

62 equivalent to ‘human-dominated’ or ‘human-impacted’ habitats, among similar terms (see McKinney

63 2015 for detailed analysis of anthropogenic influences on primate habitats). With the acceptance

64 that modified environments offer habitat for many primates, theoretical and applied interest in how

65 primates behave in anthropogenic habitats has increased (Hockings et al. 2015; Humle and Hill 2016;

66 Nowak and Lee 2013; Strier 2017).

67 Consistent with the wider literature on human–wildlife interactions (Angelici 2016; Seoraj-

68 Pillai and Pillay 2017; Woodroffe et al. 2005), research on primates in anthropogenic habitats has

69 tended to concentrate on negative aspects of human–primate interactions, such as primates

70 ‘raiding’ agricultural crops and other ‘conflicts’ that challenge the sustainability of primate

71 coexistence with people (Hill 2005). This reminds us that not all behavioral adjustments to

72 anthropogenic habitats are beneficial (see Sih et al. 2011; Tuomainen and Candolin 2011; Wong and

73 Candolin 2015), with some behaviors compromising the survival of primate populations, for example

74 by inciting persecution by people. Understanding primates’ behavioral flexibility in response to

75 human influence on their habitat, and how local people perceive and respond to changing primate

76 behavior, can inform conservation management to aid the long-term survival of primates in a fast-

77 changing world (Hockings et al. 2015; Nowak and Lee 2013).

78 To explore these issues in more depth, we organized a Symposium entitled “Behavioral

79 flexibility by primates in anthropogenic habitats” at the VIth European Federation for Primatology

80 Congress held in Rome in August 2015, inviting presentations from researchers studying human–

81 primate interactions. In response to the interest shown during the symposium, Joanna M. Setchell,

82 Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Primatology, invited us to guest edit a Special Issue on

83 this topic. This Special Issue presents papers which illustrate different and novel ways that primates

84 exhibit behavioral flexibility in response to human-induced habitat changes, and how this affects the

85 long-term sustainability of their interactions with humans. We refer to these themes more generally

86 in this introduction as “primates in anthropogenic habitats”. To provide context to the contributions,

87 we first reviewed the literature to identify past and present trends in research focus in primates in

88 anthropogenic habitats. We discuss which primates are most studied and where, what kinds of

89 behavioral adjustments are reported, and the nature of interactions reported between primates and

90 people, with representative examples from the literature search. Next, we introduce the

91 contributions to this Special Issue. We conclude with reflections on the current state of research in

92 this evolving field, and suggest future lines of inquiry for its development.

94 RESEARCH TRENDS

95 We searched the literature for publications reporting primate behavior in anthropogenic habitats

96 using the Web of ScienceTM database. We searched using ‘All Databases’, which included the Web of

97 Science core collection, MEDLINE, and BIOSIS and SciELO citation indexes, covering articles published

98 from 1970 to December 7th 2016. We searched for full-length research articles, short

99 communications, commentaries and reviews, but excluded studies published as abstracts only. We

100 used the key words ‘primate’, ‘monkey’, ‘ape’ and ‘lemur’ in all searches, as well as common names

101 (e.g., macaque, baboon, capuchin, chimpanzee) in some searches. We combined key words with

102 relevant search terms, repeating searches using alternative or synonymous terms. Search terms that

103 returned greatest numbers of relevant articles were human–wildlife conflict, human–wildlife

104 interactions, crops, crop raiding, agriculture, plantation, anthropogenic, human-dominated, tourism,

105 provisioning, and urban.

106 Our criterion for inclusion was that articles include information on any of the following: (i)

107 primate behaviors that may be regarded as adjustments to, or consequences of, living in

108 anthropogenic habitats, and thus broadly indicative of flexibility in such environments. While

109 behavioral ‘adjustments’ included reports of differences between primates in anthropogenic

110 habitats compared to those in less human-impacted ones, we refer to these behavioral differences

111 as ‘adjustments’ for consistency with the wider literature (e.g., Sol et al. 2013; Wong and Candolin

112 2015). Reported adjustments include behaviors associated with diet (i.e., feeding on exotic items),

113 activity, ranging, social organization and reproduction; (ii) behavioral responses of primates to novel

114 aspects of, or risks associated with, anthropogenic habitats; (iii) direct interactions between

115 primates and humans in anthropogenic habitats (tourists, local people or researchers); (iv) human

116 perceptions of, attitudes towards, or beliefs about, primates; and (v) the conservation implications

117 or likely sustainability of these interactions.

118 We did not consider publications reporting only general effects of human disturbance such

119 as forest fragmentation, logging, and hunting on primate occurrence, densities, distribution or

120 ecology (including influences on primates’ natural diet, for example in forest fragments), or articles

121 focussed solely on the ecological characteristics of human-modified habitats used by primates.

122 Likewise, we excluded publications about primate health, population genetics or physiology, unless

123 these also included relevant information on behavior. We limited searches to studies of wild or free

124 ranging primates, excluding (ex-)captive or pet primates, but note that some ‘wild’ or free ranging

125 populations included in our review – especially those at tourism or religious sites – are managed by

126 humans to considerable extents (e.g., through food provisioning or population control).

127 Our searches returned 517 publications that potentially met our criteria. After examining

128 each abstract, in most cases we consulted the full article to confirm the publication’s relevance or to

129 establish additional details about the study. The final dataset comprised 427 publications.

130 Our review is not intended to be exhaustive. Contributions to edited volumes were not well-

131 represented in our searches, which mostly returned journal articles. Additional relevant studies can

132 be found in Fa and Southwick (1988), Fuentes and Wolfe (2002), Gumert et al. (2011), Paterson and

133 Wallis (2005), Radhakrishna et al. (2013) and Waller (2016), and in journals and newsletters

134 published by the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group, which are not indexed by Web of Science.

135 Nevertheless, Web of Science has a wide coverage of science journals including all major animal

136 behaviour, ecology and conservation periodicals (including the ‘big four’ primatology journals,

137 American Journal of Primatology, Folia Primatologica, International Journal of Primatology, and

138 Primates). Thus, we are confident that results of our literature search are representative of the field.

139

140 Growth in research

141 As noted elsewhere (Humle and Hill 2016), publications concerning primates in anthropogenic

142 habitats have increased since the earliest reports from the 1970s (Fig. 1). Studies were relatively few

143 until the 1990s when research interest began to increase, particularly in primates’ use of agricultural

144 crops (usually termed ‘crop raiding’), and following the publication of several influential studies

145 (Altmann and Muruthi 1988; Hill 1997; Naughton-Treves et al. 1998; Siex and Struhsaker 1999;

146 Strum 1994). By the 2000s, primate behavior in anthropogenic environments was an established

147 topic of research (26% of publications in our dataset were published in this decade), and research

148 interest continues to rise: the first seven years of the 2010s (until December 2016) account for 57%

149 of publications in our dataset (Fig. 1).

150

151 Fig. 1. The number of publications about primates in anthropogenic habitats published in each 152 decade since the 1970s from a Web of ScienceTM literature search (1970 to December 7th 2016; N = 153 427).

154

155 Which primates and where?

156 Most publications in our dataset concerned primates in mainland Africa (40%) and Asia (39%) (Fig.

157 2); 16% concerned Neotropical primates while only 3% concerned Madagascan primates.

158 Historically-introduced populations of Macaca mulatta in the United States and M. sylvanus in

159 Europe accounted for one and seven publications, respectively. Forty-eight countries were

160 represented, including 44 of the 90 where primates occur naturally (Estrada et al. 2017), as well as

161 four countries where primates were introduced historically. India (12%), Uganda (11%), Indonesia

162 (11%), Brazil (9%), South Africa (5%), Japan (5%) and Kenya (5%) were the subject of the most

163 publications.

164

165 Fig. 2. Pie chart showing the distribution of publications about primates in anthropogenic habitats 166 according to geographical region, from a Web of ScienceTM literature search covering the period 167 1970 to December 7th 2016 (N = 405 publications specific to a particular geographic region). ‘Other’ 168 comprises publications on historically-introduced primates in Europe and the United States. 169

170 The most common anthropogenic habitat in which primates interface with humans can be

171 broadly categorized as ‘rural agricultural’ (50% of publications). These were typically mosaic

172 landscapes with areas of ‘natural’ vegetation such as forest fragments bordered by or intermixed

173 with household farms and villages, or where protected areas border agricultural land. In 14% of

174 publications, primates were studied in large commercial timber or agricultural plantations. Twenty

175 percent of publications concerned primates at sites visited by tourists or religious devotees, while

176 15% of publications described primate behavior in urban settings such as towns and cities. These

177 habitat categories were not mutually-exclusive; for example, primate tourism sites were often in

178 urban locales.

179 We recorded the focal primate species, genera and families in publications (see Electronic

180 Supplementary Material [ESM] Tables S1–S3). The dataset included 84 species in 32 genera from 12

181 families, corresponding to 17% of 504 species, 41% of 79 genera, and 75% of 16 families recognized

182 in Estrada et al. (2017). Ten primate species accounted for half (51%) of the records for individual

183 species (N = 415) (Fig. 3a; see ESM Table S1 for a complete list).

184

185

186 Fig. 3. The 10 primate species and genera most commonly featured in publications about primates in 187 anthropogenic habitats, from a Web of ScienceTM literature search (1970 to December 7th 2016). We 188 recorded up to two focal species and genera per publication. Bars show the percentage of the total 189 number of records for (a) individual species (N = 415 ‘species records’) and (b) individual genera (N = 190 420 ‘genus records’). The number of focal species in each genus in the dataset is shown in 191 parenthesis below the bars in (b). 192

193 One species of great ape (Pan troglodytes) featured in the greatest number of publications

194 (11% of species records; Fig. 3a). Other focal species common in the dataset include those well-

195 known for inhabiting human-dominated habitats: five macaque species (Macaca spp.), three baboon

196 species (Papio spp.) and grivet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops). The prevalence of chimpanzee

197 studies does not imply that this species is especially numerous or prospers in modified habitats in

198 association with people – unlike some macaques, for example (Richard et al. 1989). Rather, it mostly

199 reflects recent interest in this species’ responses to anthropogenic habitat modifications (e.g.,

200 Hockings and McLennan 2012; Krief et al. 2014; McLennan and Hockings 2014). Other primate

201 genera that have been well-studied in anthropogenic habitats are more speciose than chimpanzees

202 (especially Macaca), with research effort spread over several species. By comparison, other genera

203 that exploit anthropogenic environments were the focus of relatively few studies in our dataset, for

204 example Cercopithecus, Sapajus, and Erythrocebus.

205 Three genera (Macaca, Papio and Pan) accounted for over half of the records for individual

206 genera (N = 420; ESM Table S2). Macaca alone accounted for one third, and included 17 focal

207 species (Fig. 3b). Four species of Papio accounted for 13% of genus records. Alouatta spp. (howler

208 monkeys) and Chlorocebus spp. (including grivet and vervet monkeys) also featured relatively often

209 in the database.

210 Most publications (63%) in the dataset concerned the Cercopithecidae (ESM Table S3).

211 However, the distribution of research across primate families has changed over time (Fig. 4). The

212 proportion of studies focussed on the Cercopithecidae decreased after the 1990s while those

213 focussed on the Hominidae increased, particularly since 2010. The proportion of studies of

214 Neotropical primates (Atelidae, Callitrichidae and Cebidae) also increased after the 1990s. Only 5%

215 of publications in the dataset concerned other primate families.

216

217 Fig. 4. The distribution of research focussed on individual families of primate in three time periods, 218 from a Web of ScienceTM literature search (1970 to December 7th 2016). We recorded up to two focal 219 families per publication. We calculated percentages from the number of records per family out of 220 the total number of ‘family records’ in each period: 1970–90s (N = 75 family records), 2000s (N =

221 112) and 2010–16 (N = 237). ‘Other families’ are the combined records for Aotidae, Daubentoniidae, 222 Hylobatidae, Indriidae, Lemuridae, Lorisidae and Tarsiidae, each of which was the focus of 1–9 223 publications only (see ESM Table S3).

224

225 Of the 84 species in the dataset, 36% are currently classified as Least Concern (Fig. 5,

226 following IUCN Red List Categories reported in Estrada et al. 2017). Fifty-seven percent of species are

227 currently in the IUCN Red List ‘Threatened’ categories: 20% are Vulnerable, 29% are Endangered,

228 and 8% are Critically Endangered (Fig. 5) (ESM Table S1).

229

230

231 Fig. 5. Pie chart showing the conservation status of 84 species of focal primate in publications about 232 primates in anthropogenic habitats, from a Web of ScienceTM literature search (1970 to December 233 7th 2016). IUCN Red List Categories follow Estrada et al. (2017). 234

235 Behavioral adjustments

236 We classified behavioral adjustments by primates living in anthropogenic habitats as ‘dietary’,

237 ‘socioecological’, ‘risk-related response’, ‘miscellaneous’ (for novel or rare behaviors) and ‘general

238 use’ (for publications reporting primates’ active use of anthropogenic environments but without

239 specifying a particular behavioral adjustment). The most commonly reported behavioral adjustment

240 exhibited by primates in anthropogenic habitats was dietary (Fig. 6): primates in anthropogenic

241 habitats were widely reported to feed on exotic plants including agricultural crops and plantation

242 trees among other introduced species, as well as garbage and provisioned items; 19% of these

243 publications concerned wild and free-ranging primates at tourist or religious sites. In rare instances

244 baboons and chimpanzees also consumed domestic animals, while capuchins were observed

245 consuming a chicken carcass (Cunha et al. 2006).

246

247 Fig. 6. The % of publications reporting behavioral adjustments in primates living in anthropogenic 248 habitats from a Web of ScienceTM literature search (1970 to December 7th 2016; N = 427). We 249 categorized behaviors as dietary, socioecological, risk-related, miscellaneous, and ‘general use’ of 250 the habitat (see text for details). Some studies reported behaviors in more than one category. 251

252 Socioecological adjustments – described in 21% of publications – included changes in

253 activity, ranging and habitat use, grouping and social organization, and reproduction. For example,

254 primates that regularly eat energy-rich agricultural crops or garbage often, but not always, travel

255 and forage less, have smaller ranges, and spend more time resting and socializing (e.g., Chlorocebus

256 pygerythrus, Saj et al. 1999). Crop foraging primates may exhibit flexible grouping patterns with

257 certain age-sex classes (often adult males) most likely to participate in risky forays into agricultural

258 fields (e.g., Cercopithecus ascanius, Baranga et al. 2012; Pan troglodytes, Hockings et al. 2012).

259 Habitat use, including sleeping site locations, may facilitate primates’ access to human foods (e.g.,

260 Macaca fascicularis; Brotcorne et al. 2014) but can also reflect avoidance of areas of busy human

261 activity (e.g., Hylobates moloch, Reisland and Lambert 2016). In some publications, frequent

262 consumption of human foods is linked to shorter interbirth intervals, earlier reproductive onset and

263 reduced infant mortality (e.g., Papio anubis; Higham et al. 2009; Strum 2010).

264 Ten percent of publications report specific behavioral responses of primates to novel risks in

265 anthropogenic habitats, such as roads, domestic dogs and cats, and humans. Behaviors described

266 include cryptic behavior to avoid detection (e.g., Chlorocebus tantalus, Kavanagh 1980), vigilance

267 (e.g., Papio cynocephalus; Maples et al. 1976), group cohesion and protective behavior towards

268 vulnerable group members (e.g., Pan troglodytes; Cibot et al. 2015; Hockings et al. 2012), choice of

269 sleeping sites to minimize predation by domestic animals (e.g., Callithrix penicillata, Duarte and

270 Young 2011), and aggression directed at humans and dogs (e.g., Pan troglodytes: McLennan and Hill

271 2010). Counter-aggression in response to threats from humans was reported at some tourist sites

272 (e.g., Macaca mulatta, Beisner et al. 2015).

273 Miscellaneous behavioral adjustments (13% publications) included use of exotic trees for

274 sleeping (e.g., Pongo pygmaeus, Ancrenaz et al. 2015), use of artificial structures such as roofs and

275 fences for travelling or resting (e.g., Semnopithecus vetulus; Moore et al. 2010), use of human water

276 sources for drinking (Erythrocebus patas, de Jong et al. 2008), and use of high-valued agricultural

277 fruits as potential ‘commodities’ (e.g., Pan troglodytes, Hockings et al. 2007). Increased intragroup

278 aggression or harassment of human visitors for food were common in provisioned primates (e.g.,

279 Macaca sylvanus, El Alami et al. 2012; Macaca thibetana, Zhao and Deng 1992). A further 6% of

280 publications describe ‘general use’ of anthropogenic habitats by primates, for example, long-term

281 persistence in exotic plantations or agroforesty landscapes (e.g., Alouatta pigra, Zarate et al. 2014).

282 Nineteen percent of publications identified the behavioral or ecological flexibility (or ‘adaptability’)

283 of focal primates as a likely factor contributing to their persistence in anthropogenic habitats (e.g.,

284 Sapajus xanthosternos, Canale et al. 2013).

285

286 People and primates

287 Most publications in our dataset (66%) were studies of primates and included only incidental or

288 brief, anecdotal information about humans. However, humans were the primary focus in 12% of

289 publications, while 22% were studies of both people and primates (Fig. 7a). Overall, 21% of

290 publications included some assessment of human attitudes towards, perceptions of, or beliefs

291 about, primates. Of these, 10% were published in the 1970–90s, 25% were published in the 2000s,

292 and 65% were published during 2010–2016 (Fig. 7b). This substantial growth in primate research

293 concerned with people reflects increasing forays by primatologists into the realm of social science,

294 and mirrors a general shift across the biological sciences in recognition of the need to engage with

295 human dimensions of wildlife and biodiversity conservation (e.g., Bennett et al. 2017). For example,

296 ethnoprimatology uses interdisciplinary methods and perspectives to understand the social and

297 ecological ‘interconnectedness’ of humans and other primates (e.g., Fuentes 2012; Fuentes and

298 Hockings 2010). While relatively few publications in our dataset explicitly adopted an

299 ethnoprimatological approach (N = 17; 4%), only one of these was published before 2010 (Riley

300 2007).

301

302 Fig. 7. Pie charts showing (a) the proportion of publications about primates in anthropogenic 303 habitats that focussed primarily on primates, humans, or both, from a Web of ScienceTM literature 304 search (1970 to December 7th 2016; N = 427); (b) the proportion of the total number of publications

305 that included an assessment of human attitudes towards, perceptions of, or beliefs about, primates 306 (N = 88) that were published in each of three time periods: 1970–90s, 2000s, and 2010–16. 307

308 Direct behavioral interactions between people and primates were reported in 23% of publications,

309 many concerning interactions that can be regarded as ‘negative’. Descriptions of interactions

310 occurred disproportionally in studies of provisioned primates or primates in urban settings (56% of

311 publications reporting direct interactions), and centred mostly on the acquisition of human food by

312 primates (e.g., Chlorocebus aethiops, Brennan et al. 1985). Reported interactions in agricultural

313 settings revolved mostly around protection of crops, including observations of farmers chasing or

314 throwing objects to deter primates (e.g., Papio anubis, Warren et al. 2011).

315 33% of publications in our dataset overtly emphasized ‘negative’ or competitive aspects of

316 people–primate interactions, through use of terms such as ‘conflict’, ‘killing’, ‘pest’ and ‘damage’.

317 Conversely, only 7% explicitly emphasised ‘positive’, ‘peaceful’ or neutral interactions (e.g., Callithrix

318 penicillata, Leite et al. 2011); these were reported mostly in the context of human cultural attitudes

319 that serve to protect or promote tolerance of coexisting primates, and hence allow for more

320 sustainable interactions (e.g., Macaca tonkeana and M. ochreata: Riley and Priston 2010). Most such

321 publications discussed both positive and negative aspects of coexistence, with local people

322 expressing tolerance of primates in addition to concerns over crop losses or aggression from

323 primates (e.g., Pan troglodytes: McLennan and Hill 2012).

324 In summary, our review confirms that primate behavior and interactions with people in

325 anthropogenic habitats are major topics of inquiry in primatology today. Most species that were

326 prominent in publications are classified as ‘Least Concern’ in the IUCN Red List, although

327 chimpanzees are an exception (ESM Table S1). Least-concern primates are often generalists that can

328 fare well in landscapes dominated by human activities (e.g., some macaques and baboons).

329 Examples of flexible behavior concerned a diversity of primates, however, including highly

330 threatened and so-called ‘specialist’ species (see Nowak and Lee 2013). Nevertheless, the majority of

331 primate species were not represented in any publications in our dataset (e.g., members of the

332 Cheirogaleidae, Galagidae, Lepilemuridae and Pitheciidae), which may be because they are less likely

333 to occur in human-modified environments – perhaps owing to a lack of flexibility – or are

334 understudied generally, or both. Evident from our review is the predominant focus on ‘negative’

335 (i.e., conflict) compared to ‘positive’ (coexistence) aspects of people–primate interactions. While

336 studies often provided recommendations to reduce conflict, few included an in-depth exploration of

337 mechanisms that could enable sustainable human–primate coexistence in the long-term.

338

339 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS SPECIAL ISSUE

340 For this Special Issue we invited contributions from researchers working in all main geographic

341 regions where primates occur naturally – mainland Africa, Asia, the Neotropics and Madagascar.

342 Research articles concern a variety of primates (Fig. 8), with additional species covered in two review

343 articles. Three focal primates (Cercopithecus albogularis, Eulemur collaris, and Macaca maura) were

344 not represented by any publications in our literature review, thus contributions provide new

345 information about the behavior of these species in human-modified environments. The current

346 strong research interest in chimpanzees, evident from our review, is reflected in four contributions

347 focussed on this great ape.

348

349 Fig. 8. Primate species in anthropogenic habitats included in this Special Issue. (a) Adult male 350 bearded capuchin monkey (Sapajus libidinosus) feeding on maize, Zea mays (photo by N. 351 Spagnoletti); (b) Eastern chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) crossing a newly widened 352 road at Bulindi, Uganda (photo by J. Rohen); (c) Southern bamboo lemurs (Hapalemur meridionalis) 353 foraging on flowers of exotic Melaleuca quinquenervia in the Mandena littoral forest, southeast 354 Madagascar (photo by T. M. Eppley); (d) Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) eating maize on the road 355 after foraging in crop fields (photo T. Gaillard); (e) Mother and infant Bornean orangutan (Pongo 356 pygmaeus morio) moving arboreally in a plantation of Paraserianthes falcataria in East Kalimantan 357 (photo by Y. Rayadin); (f) Javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus) using a cultivated avocado plant 358 (photo by A. Walmsley); (g) Juvenile samango monkey (Cercopithecus albogularis labiatus) eating 359 exotic black wattle seeds (photo by K. Wimberger); (h) Camera trap photograph (captured by a 360 Bushnell 8 MP remote sensor camera) showing moor macaques (Macaca maura) foraging on maize 361 (photo by A. Zak and E. Riley); (i) Adult female brown howler (Alouatta guariba clamitans) eating 362 guava, Psidium guajava, in an orchard in Itapuã settlement, southern Brazil (photo by J. P. Back).

363

364 As our literature review revealed, feeding on exotic plants is a primary behavioral

365 adjustment of primates in modified habitats, and many contributions to this Special Issue concern

366 aspects of this dietary adjustment. McLennan and Ganzhorn (2017) evaluate the common

367 assumption that crops offer high nutritional returns compared to wild forage for primates by

368 comparing the chemical content of wild and cultivated foods in the diet of eastern chimpanzees (Pan

369 troglodytes schweinfurthii). Wimberger et al. (2017) examine the role of exotic plants in the feeding

370 ecology of samango monkeys (Cercopithecus albogularis labiatus) in a matrix of residential gardens

371 and native forest. Hockings et al. (2016) explore seed dispersal in an anthropogenic context, by

372 studying patterns of dispersal of a cultivated crop (cacao, Theobroma cacao) by western

373 chimpanzees (P. t. verus). Nowak et al. (2016) take an experimental approach to examine risk-

374 sensitive foraging in samango monkeys (C. a. labiatus) in a habitat matrix of indigenous forest and

375 residential gardens, where food acquisition was most risky. Schweitzer et al. (2017) examine

376 individual participation, decision-making, and collective movements by chacma baboons (Papio

377 ursinus) when foraging on crops along the periphery of a National Park.

378 Three research articles use multidisciplinary methods to study human–primate interactions.

379 Zak and Riley (2016) compared camera trap footage of crop foraging by moor macaques (Macaca

380 maura) with farmer perceptions of macaque behavior on farms gleaned from semi-structured

381 interviews. Spagnoletti et al. (2016) combined interviews with local people with observations of crop

382 foraging in bearded capuchins (Sapajus libidinosus) and other vertebrates using experimental plots

383 established with the participation of local farmers. Chaves and Bicca-Marques (2016) examined crop

384 foraging and its potential economic costs by brown howlers (Alouatta guariba clamitans), combined

385 with interviews to understand landowners’ perceptions of the issue. Despite significant crop losses

386 to primates, farmers in these latter two studies did not perceive these crop losses as problematic.

387 These examples remind us that the extent of primate crop damage does not necessarily equate to

388 the resulting level of ‘conflict’ (Hockings 2016), and that human perceptions of primates which

389 influence tolerance of them vary in time and space (Hill and Webber 2010).

390 Several contributions consider how primates adjust their behavior to landscape

391 characteristics in anthropogenic habitats. Bryson Morrison et al. (2017) examined the activity

392 budgets of P. t. verus in a mosaic habitat to examine the influence that ‘risky’ parts of their home

393 range – cultivated fields, roads and paths – have on their foraging behavior. Nekaris et al. (2017)

394 studied the behavior of Javan slow lorises (Nycticebus javanicus) in response to the introduction of a

395 cash crop, chayote, finding that the bamboo frames used to support chayote provided lorises with a

396 novel substrate network for foraging and travelling. McCarthy et al. (2016) adopt a landscape-level

397 approach to reveal how P. t. schweinfurthii respond to anthropogenic land-use changes through

398 their use of cultivated and exotic tree plantation species for nesting. Eppley et al. (2016) assessed

399 the ecological flexibility of two lemurids (Eulemur collaris and Hapalemur meridionalis) in a degraded

400 habitat by comparing their use of exotic and pioneer plants. Spehar and Rayadin (2017) conducted

401 camera trapping and nest surveys to examine habitat use by Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus

402 morio) in a plantation forestry landscape.

403 Hill (2017) reviews current knowledge about primate crop foraging behaviour, and highlights

404 key areas for future research to promote human–primate coexistence in shared landscapes.

405 Additionally, she outlines current debates over terms such as ‘human–wildlife conflict’ and ‘crop-

406 raiding’, arguing that these obscure the complex nature of human–primate interactions, and can

407 exacerbate associated problems. In recognition of these debates, contributors to this issue

408 endeavored to use neutral terminology when discussing primate crop feeding. Finally, Setchell et al.

409 (2016) present three case studies that demonstrate how careful integration of biological and

410 ethnographic methods and perspectives can greatly improve our understanding of the complexities

411 of human–primate interactions, and thus are crucial for addressing conservation challenges

412 effectively.

413 Collectively, these articles illustrate recent advances in the field, including new insights on

414 prominent themes in the literature (e.g., primate crop feeding) as well as traditional themes in

415 behavioral ecology (e.g., seed dispersal, nutritional ecology, collective movements and risk

416 perception), and an emphasis on interdisciplinary methods and perspectives to study people–

417 primate interactions (e.g., camera traps combined with farmer interviews, and ethnoprimatology

418 approaches).

419

420 WAYS FORWARD

421 Primates have slow life histories and some human-induced changes likely occur too quickly for

422 genetic adaptations to accrue. Given severe threats to the survival of primates globally (Estrada et al.

423 2017), it is critical to understand how different species respond to anthropogenic change, and the

424 extent to which behavioral flexibility will help them survive in the face of ongoing changes. A goal of

425 this Special Issue is to stimulate increased interest and new ideas on this topic.

426 As our review indicates, we still know little about how most primates respond behaviorally

427 to humans and their activities, underscoring the need for research on additional, understudied

428 species. Few primate field sites are wholly unaffected by human influence, providing researchers

429 with opportunities to incorporate anthropogenic variables into studies of primate behavior

430 (Hockings et al. 2015). A lack of flexible responses should be reported along with evidence of

431 flexibility. Greater examination of the adaptive value of behavioral changes is needed: do these

432 adjustments help primates succeed in human-impacted environments or do they incite persecution

433 from humans, potentially leading to extirpation of primate populations? To this end, long-term

434 studies and comparisons among populations exposed to different forms and degrees of

435 anthropogenic influence are invaluable.

436 We cannot hope to conserve primates without considering the wider political,

437 socioeconomic, ecological, and cultural conditions under which coexistence with humans is possible,

438 or not. Thus, we must be interested in people too. As emphasized by Setchell et al. (2016), this

439 requires that primate researchers become “skilled at bridging disciplinary boundaries”. Care must be

440 taken, however, when researching potentially controversial topics such as ‘conflicts’ involving

441 humans and primates to avoid misrepresenting or exacerbating problems (Hill 2015; Redpath et al.

442 2013). Anthropological investigations should be undertaken by researchers trained in the social

443 sciences and with experience of the local socio-political environment in which they conduct their

444 research. Human–primate interactions rarely standalone and are usually associated with broader

445 conservation issues. Thus, we should strive for a more holistic approach to primate conservation.

446 This requires a shift from a predominant focus on constraints to coexistence to careful

447 interdisciplinary research to identify appropriate mechanisms that will enable sustainable human–

448 primate coexistence in the 21st Century and beyond.

449

450 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

451 We thank all the authors and reviewers that contributed to this Special Issue. We thank Joanna

452 Setchell for inviting us to guest edit this Special Issue and for her excellent feedback that helped us

453 improve this manuscript.

454

455 REFERENCES

456 Altmann, J., & Muruthi, P. (1988). Differences in daily life between semiprovisioned and wild‐feeding 457 baboons. American Journal of Primatology, 15, 213-221.

458 Ancrenaz, M., Oram, F., Ambu, L., Lackman, I., Ahmad, E., Elahan, H., et al. (2015). Of Pongo, palms 459 and perceptions: A multidisciplinary assessment of Bornean orang-utans Pongo pygmaeus in an oil 460 palm context. Oryx, 49, 465-472.

461 Angelici, F. M. (Ed.) (2016). Problematic Wildlife. Springer International Publishing: Springer.

462 Baranga, D., Basuta, G. I., Teichroeb, J. A., & Chapman, C. A. (2012). Crop raiding patterns of solitary 463 and social groups of red-tailed monkeys on cocoa pods in Uganda. Tropical Conservation Science, 5, 464 104-111.

465 Beisner, B. A., Heagerty, A., Seil, S. K., Balasubramaniam, K. N., Atwill, E. R., Gupta, B. K., et al. (2015). 466 Human–wildlife conflict: Proximate predictors of aggression between humans and rhesus macaques 467 in India. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 156, 286-294.

468 Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., et al. (2017). Conservation social 469 science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological 470 Conservation, 205, 93–108.

471 Brennan, E. J., Else, J. G., & Altmann, J. (1985). Ecology and behaviour of a pest primate: Vervet 472 monkeys in a tourist‐lodge habitat. African Journal of Ecology, 23, 35–44.

473 Brotcorne, F., Maslarov, C., Wandia, I. N., Fuentes, A., Beudels‐Jamar, R. C., & Huynen, M. C. (2014). 474 The role of anthropic, ecological, and social factors in sleeping site choice by long‐tailed macaques 475 (Macaca fascicularis). American Journal of Primatology, 76, 1140-1150.

476 Bryson-Morrison, N., Tzanopoulos, J., Matsuzawa, T., & Humle, T. (2017). Activity and habitat use of 477 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in the anthropogenic landscape of Bossou, Guinea, West Africa. 478 International Journal of Primatology, doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9947-4

479 Canale, G. R., Kierulff, M. C. M., & Chivers, D. J. (2013). A critically endangered capuchin monkey 480 (Sapajus xanthosternos) living in a highly fragmented hotspot. In L. K. Marsh & C. A. Chapman (Eds.), 481 Primates in fragments: Complexity and resilience (pp. 299-311). New York: Springer.

482 Chaves, Ó. M., & Bicca-Marques, J. C. (2016). Crop feeding by brown howlers (Alouatta guariba 483 clamitans) in forest fragments: The conservation value of cultivated species. International Journal of 484 Primatology, doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9927-8

485 Cibot, M., Bortolamiol, S., Seguya, A., & Krief, S. (2015). Chimpanzees facing a dangerous situation: A 486 high‐traffic asphalted road in the Sebitoli area of Kibale National Park, Uganda. American Journal of 487 Primatology, 77, 890-900.

488 Cunha, A. A., Vieira, M. V., & Grelle, C. E. (2006). Preliminary observations on habitat, support use 489 and diet in two non-native primates in an urban Atlantic forest fragment: The capuchin monkey 490 (Cebus sp.) and the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) in the Tijuca forest, Rio de Janeiro. Urban 491 Ecosystems, 9, 351-359.

492 de Jong, Y. A., Butynski, T. M., & Nekaris, K. A. I. (2008). Distribution and conservation of the patas 493 monkey Erythrocebus patas in Kenya. Journal of East African Natural History, 97, 83-102.

494 Duarte, M. H., & Young, R. J. (2011). Sleeping site selection by urban marmosets (Callithrix 495 penicillata) under conditions of exceptionally high predator density. International Journal of 496 Primatology, 32, 329-334.

497 El Alami, A., Van Lavieren, E., Rachida, A., & Chait, A. (2012). Differences in activity budgets and diet 498 between semiprovisioned and wild‐feeding groups of the endangered Barbary Macaque (Macaca 499 sylvanus) in the Central High Atlas Mountains, Morocco. American Journal of Primatology, 74, 210- 500 216.

501 Eppley, T. M., Balestri, M., Campera, M., Rabenantoandro, J., Ramanamanjato, J. B., Randriatafika, F., 502 et al. (2016). Ecological flexibility as measured by the use of pioneer and exotic plants by two

503 lemurids: Eulemur collaris and Hapalemur meridionalis. International Journal of Primatology, 504 doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9943-8

505 Estrada, A., Raboy, B.E., & Oliveira, L.C. (2012). Agroecosystems and primate conservation in the 506 tropics: A review. American Journal of Primatology, 74, 696-711.

507 Estrada, A., Garber, P. A., Rylands, A. B., Roos, C., Fernandez-Duque, E., Di Fiore, A., et al. (2017). 508 Impending extinction crisis of the world’s primates: Why primates matter. Science Advances, 3, 509 e1600946.

510 Fa, J. E., & Southwick, C. H. (Eds.) (1988). Ecology and behavior of food-enhanced primate groups. 511 New York: Alan R. Liss.

512 Fuentes, A. (2012). Ethnoprimatology and the anthropology of the human–primate interface. Annual 513 Review of Anthropology, 41, 101-117.

514 Fuentes, A., & Hockings, K. J. (2010). The ethnoprimatological approach in primatology. American 515 Journal of Primatology, 72, 841-847.

516 Fuentes, A., & Wolfe, L. D. (Eds.) (2002). Primates face to face: The conservation implications of 517 human–nonhuman primate interconnections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

518 Gumert, M. D, Fuentes, A., & Jones-Engel, L. (Eds.) (2011). Monkeys on the edge: Ecology and 519 management of long-tailed macaques and their interface with humans. Cambridge: Cambridge 520 University Press.

521 Higham, J. P., Warren, Y., Adanu, J., Umaru, B. N., MacLarnon, A. M., Sommer, V., & Ross, C. (2009). 522 Living on the edge: Life‐history of olive baboons at Gashaka‐Gumti National Park, Nigeria. American 523 Journal of Primatology, 71, 293-304.

524 Hill, C. M. (1997). Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: The farmer’s perspective in an agricultural 525 community in western Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management, 43, 77-84.

526 Hill, C. M. (2005). People, crops and primates: A conflict of interests. In J. D. Paterson & J. Wallis 527 (Eds.), Commensalism and conflict: The human–primate interface (pp. 359-384). Norman, OK: 528 American Society of Primatologists.

529 Hill, C. M. (2015). Perspectives of “conflict” at the wildlife–agriculture boundary: 10 years on. Human 530 Dimensions of Wildlife, 20, 296-301.

531 Hill, C. M. (2017). Primate crop feeding behavior, crop protection, and conservation. International 532 Journal of Primatology, doi:10.1007/s10764-017-9951-3

533 Hill, C. M., & Webber, A. D. (2010). Perceptions of nonhuman primates in human–wildlife conflict 534 scenarios. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 919–924.

535 Hockings, K. J. (2016). Mitigating human–nonhuman primate conflict. In A. Fuentes (Ed.), The 536 International Encyclopedia of Primatology. John Wiley & Sons.

537 Hockings, K. J., Anderson, J. R., & Matsuzawa, T. (2012). Socioecological adaptations by chimpanzees, 538 Pan troglodytes verus, inhabiting an anthropogenically impacted habitat. Animal Behaviour, 83, 801- 539 810.

540 Hockings, K. J., Humle, T., Anderson, J. R., Biro, D., Sousa, C., Ohashi, G., & Matsuzawa, T. (2007). 541 Chimpanzees share forbidden fruit. PLoS ONE, 2, e886.

542 Hockings, K. J., & McLennan, M. R. (2012). From forest to farm: Systematic review of cultivar feeding 543 by chimpanzees – management implications for wildlife in anthropogenic landscapes. PLoS ONE, 7, 544 e33391.

545 Hockings, K. J., McLennan, M. R., Carvalho, S., Ancrenaz, M., Bobe, R., Byrne, R. W., et al. (2015). 546 Apes in the Anthropocene: Flexibility and survival. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30, 215-222.

547 Hockings, K. J., Yamakoshi, G., & Matsuzawa, T. (2016). Dispersal of a human-cultivated crop by wild 548 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in a forest–farm matrix. International Journal of Primatology, 549 doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9924-y

550 Horrocks, J. A., & Hunte, W. (1986). Sentinel behaviour in vervet monkeys: who sees whom first? 551 Animal Behaviour, 34, 1566-1568.

552 Humle, T., & Hill, C. (2016). People–primate interactions: Implications for primate conservation. In S. 553 A. Wich, & A. J. Marshall (Eds.), An Introduction to Primate Conservation (pp. 219-240). Oxford: 554 Oxford University Press.

555 Jones, C. B. (2005). Behavioral flexibility in primates: Causes and consequences. New York: Springer.

556 Kavanagh, M. (1980). Invasion of the forest by an African savannah monkey: Behavioural 557 adaptations. Behaviour, 73, 238-260.

558 Krief, S., Cibot, M., Bortolamiol, S., Seguya, A., Krief, J.M., Masi, S. (2014). Wild chimpanzees on the 559 edge: Nocturnal activities in croplands. PLoS ONE, 9, e109925.

560 Leite, G. C., Duarte, M. H., & Young, R. J. (2011). Human–marmoset interactions in a city park. 561 Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132, 187-192.

562 Maples, W. R., Maples, M. K., Greenhood, W. F., & Walek, M. L. (1976). Adaptations of crop‐raiding 563 baboons in Kenya. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 45, 309-315.

564 McCarthy, M. S., Lester, J. D., & Stanford, C. B. (2016). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) flexibly use 565 introduced species for nesting and bark feeding in a human-dominated habitat. International Journal 566 of Primatology, doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9916-y

567 McKinney, T. (2015). A classification system for describing anthropogenic influence on nonhuman 568 primate populations. American Journal of Primatology, 77, 715-726.

569 McLennan, M. R., & Ganzhorn, J. U. (2017). Nutritional characteristics of wild and cultivated foods 570 for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in agricultural landscapes. International Journal of Primatology, 571 doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9940-y

572 McLennan, M. R., & Hill, C. M. (2010). Chimpanzee responses to researchers in a disturbed forest– 573 farm mosaic at Bulindi, western Uganda. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 907-918.

574 McLennan, M. R., & Hill, C. M. (2012). Troublesome neighbours: Changing attitudes towards 575 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in a human-dominated landscape in Uganda. Journal for Nature 576 Conservation, 20, 219–227.

577 McLennan, M. R., & Hockings, K. J. (2014). Wild chimpanzees show group differences in selection of 578 agricultural crops. Scientific Reports, 4, 5956.

579 Moore, R. S., Nekaris, K. A. I., & Eschmann, C. (2010). Habitat use by western purple-faced langurs 580 Trachypithecus vetulus nestor (Colobinae) in a fragmented suburban landscape. Endangered Species 581 Research, 12, 227-234.

582 Naughton-Treves, L., Treves, A., Chapman, C., & Wrangham, R. (1998). Temporal patterns of crop- 583 raiding by primates: Linking food availability in croplands and adjacent forest. Journal of Applied 584 Ecology, 35, 596–606.

585 Nekaris, K. A. I., Poindexter, S., Reinhardt, K. D., Sigaud, M., Cabana, F., Wirdateti, W., & Nijman, V. 586 (2017). Coexistence between Javan slow lorises (Nycticebus javanicus) and humans in a dynamic

587 agroforestry landscape in West Java, Indonesia. International Journal of Primatology, 1-18, 588 doi:10.1007/s10764-017-9960-2

589 Nowak, K., & Lee, P. C. (2013). “Specialist” primates can be flexible in response to habitat alteration. 590 In L. K. Marsh & C. A. Chapman (Eds.), Primates in fragments: Complexity and resilience (pp. 199– 591 211). New York: Springer.

592 Nowak, K., Wimberger, K., Richards, S. A., Hill, R. A., & le Roux, A. (2016). Samango monkeys 593 (Cercopithecus albogularis labiatus) manage risk in a highly seasonal, human-modified landscape in 594 Amathole Mountains, South Africa. International Journal of Primatology, doi:10.1007/s10764-016- 595 9913-1

596 Paterson, J. D., & Wallis, J. (Eds.) (2005). Commensalism and conflict: The human–primate interface. 597 Norman, OK: American Society of Primatologists.

598 Radhakrishna, S., Huffman, M. A., & Sinha, A. (Eds.) (2013). The macaque connection: Cooperation 599 and conflict between humans and macaques. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

600 Redpath, S.M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W.M., Sutherland, W.J., Whitehouse, A. et al. (2013). 601 Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28, 100-109.

602 Reisland, M. A., & Lambert, J. E. (2016). Sympatric apes in sacred forests: Shared space and habitat 603 use by humans and endangered Javan gibbons (Hylobates moloch). PLoS ONE, 11, e0146891.

604 Richard, A. F., Goldstein, S. J., & Dewar, R. E. (1989). Weed macaques: The evolutionary implications 605 of macaque feeding ecology. International Journal of Primatology, 10, 569.

606 Riley, E. P. (2007). The human–macaque interface: Conservation implications of current and future 607 overlap and conflict in Lore Lindu National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. American Anthropologist, 109, 608 473-484.

609 Riley, E. P., & Priston, N. E. (2010). Macaques in farms and folklore: Exploring the human–nonhuman 610 primate interface in Sulawesi, Indonesia. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 848-854.

611 Saj, T., Sicotte, P., & Paterson, J.D. (1999). Influence of human food consumption on the time budget 612 of vervets. International Journal of Primatology, 20, 977–994.

613 Schweitzer, C., Gaillard, T., Guerbois, C., Fritz, H., & Petit, O. (2017). Participant profiling and pattern 614 of crop-foraging in chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus) in Zimbabwe: Why does investigating 615 age–sex classes matter? International Journal of Primatology, doi:10.1007/s10764-017-9958-9

616 Seoraj-Pillai, N., & Pillay, N. (2017). A meta-analysis of human–wildlife conflict: South African and 617 global perspectives. Sustainability, 9, 34.

618 Setchell, J. M., Fairet, E., Shutt, K., Waters, S., & Bell, S. (2016). Biosocial conservation: Integrating 619 biological and ethnographic methods to study human–primate interactions. International Journal of 620 Primatology, doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9938-5

621 Siex, K. S., & Struhsaker, T. T. (1999). Colobus monkeys and coconuts: A study of perceived human– 622 wildlife conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 1009-1020.

623 Sih, A., Ferrari, M. C., & Harris, D. J. (2011). Evolution and behavioural responses to human‐induced 624 rapid environmental change. Evolutionary Applications, 4, 367-387.

625 Sol, D., Lapiedra, O., & González-Lagos, C. (2013). Behavioural adjustments for a life in the city. 626 Animal Behaviour, 85, 1101-1112.

627 Spagnoletti, N., Cardoso, T. C. M., Fragaszy, D., & Izar, P. (2016). Coexistence between humans and 628 capuchins (Sapajus libidinosus): Comparing observational data with farmers’ perceptions of crop 629 losses. International Journal of Primatology, doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9926-9

630 Spehar, S., & Rayadin, Y. (2017). Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus morio) habitat use in an 631 industrial forestry plantation in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Journal of Primatology

632 Strier, K. B. (2017). What does variation in primate behavior mean? American Journal of Physical 633 Anthropology, 162, 4-14.

634 Strum, S. C. (1994). Prospects for management of primate pests. Revue d’Ecologie (La Terre et la 635 Vie), 49, 295–306.

636 Strum, S. C. (2010). The development of primate raiding: Implications for management and 637 conservation. International Journal of Primatology, 31, 133-156.

638 Tuomainen, U., & Candolin, U. (2011). Behavioural responses to human‐induced environmental 639 change. Biological Reviews, 86, 640-657.

640 Waller, M. T. (Ed.) (2016). Ethnoprimatology: Primate conservation in the 21st Century. 641 Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

642 Warren, Y., Higham, J.P., MacLarnon, A. M., Ross, C. (2011). Crop-raiding and commensalism in olive 643 baboons: The costs and benefits of living with humans. In V. Sommer & C. Ross (Eds.), Primates of 644 Gashaka (pp. 359-384). New York: Springer.

645 Wimberger, K., Nowak, K., & Hill, R. A. (2017). Reliance on exotic plants by two groups of threatened 646 samango monkeys, Cercopithecus albogularis labiatus, at their southern range limit. International 647 Journal of Primatology, doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9949-2

648 Wong, B. B., & Candolin, U. (2015). Behavioral responses to changing environments. Behavioral 649 Ecology, 26, 665-673.

650 Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., & Rabinowitz, A. (Eds) (2005). People and wildlife: Conflict or co- 651 existence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

652 Zak, A. A., & Riley, E. P. (2016) Comparing the use of camera traps and farmer reports to study crop 653 feeding behavior of moor macaques (Macaca maura). International Journal of Primatology, 654 doi:10.1007/s10764-016-9945-6

655 Zárate, D. A., Andresen, E., Estrada, A., & Serio‐Silva, J. C. (2014). Black howler monkey (Alouatta 656 pigra) activity, foraging and seed dispersal patterns in shaded cocoa plantations versus rainforest in 657 southern Mexico. American Journal of Primatology, 76, 890-899.

658 Zhao, Q. K., & Deng, Z. Y. (1992). Dramatic consequences of food handouts to Macaca thibetana at 659 Mount Emei, China. Folia Primatologica, 58, 24-31.

Electronic Supplementary Material The Implications of Primate Behavioral Flexibility for Sustainable Human–Primate

Coexistence in Anthropogenic Habitats

Matthew R. McLennan · Noemi Spagnoletti · Kimberley J. Hockings

Table SI Focal primate species featured in publications about primates in anthropogenic habitats, from a Web of ScienceTM literature search covering the period 1970 to December 7, 2016 (N = 427). Species are listed alphabetically and in descending order of frequency in the dataset (number of publications).

Primate speciesa Common name IUCN Red No. of % Species recordsc List categoryb Publications Pan troglodytes Chimpanzee EN 46 11.1 Macaca mulatta Rhesus macaque LC 29 7.0 Macaca fascicularis Long-tailed macaque LC 22 5.3 Papio anubis Olive baboon LC 22 5.3 Macaca fuscata Japanese macaque LC 19 4.6 Papio ursinus Chacma baboon LC 17 4.1 Macaca radiata Bonnet macaque LC 15 3.6 Macaca sylvanus Barbary macaque EN 15 3.6 Chlorocebus aethiops Grivet monkey LC 14 3.4 Papio cynocephalus Yellow baboon LC 12 2.9 Macaca thibetana Tibetan macaque NT 9 2.2 Semnopithecus vetulus Purple-faced langur EN 9 2.2 Alouatta pigra Central American black howler EN 8 1.9 Semnopithecus entellus Bengal sacred langur LC 8 1.9 Callithrix penicillata Black-tufted-ear marmoset LC 7 1.7 Macaca tonkeana Tonkean macaque VU 7 1.7 Pongo pygmaeus Bornean orangutan EN 7 1.7 Alouatta palliata Mantled howler LC 6 1.4 Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet monkey LC 6 1.4 Lemur catta Ring-tailed lemur EN 6 1.4 Sapajus nigritus Black-horned capuchin NT 6 1.4 Alouatta guariba Brown howler LC 5 1.2 Cercopithecus mitis Blue monkey LC 5 1.2 Leontopithecus chrysomelas Golden-headed lion tamarin EN 5 1.2 Macaca ochreata Booted macaque VU 5 1.2 Piliocolobus kirkii Zanzibar red colobus EN 4 1.0 Pongo abelii Sumatran orangutan CR 4 1.0 Sapajus apella Guianan brown capuchin LC 4 1.0 Sapajus libidinosus Bearded capuchin LC 4 1.0 Trachypithecus geei Golden langur EN 4 1.0 Alouatta caraya Paraguayan howler LC 3 0.7 Callithrix kuhlii Wied’s black-tufted-ear marmoset NT 3 0.7 Cebus capucinus Colombian white-faced capuchin LC 3 0.7 Cercopithecus sclateri Sclater’s monkey VU 3 0.7 Colobus guereza Guereza LC 3 0.7 Erythrocebus patas Patas monkey LC 3 0.7 Gorilla gorilla Western gorilla CR 3 0.7 Macaca leonina Northern pig-tailed macaque VU 3 0.7 Macaca sinica Toque macaque EN 3 0.7 Tarsius dentatus Dian’s tarsier VU 3 0.7 Theropithecus gelada Gelada LC 3 0.7 Cercopithecus ascanius Red-tailed monkey LC 2 0.5 Chlorocebus tantalus Tantalus monkey LC 2 0.5 Macaca assamensis Assamese macaque NT 2 0.5 Macaca munzala Arunachal macaque EN 2 0.5 Macaca nemestrina Southern pig-tailed macaque VU 2 0.5 Macaca nigra Crested macaque CR 2 0.5 Nycticebus javanicus Javan slow loris CR 2 0.5 Papio hamadryas Hamadryas baboon LC 2 0.5 Saguinus leucopus White-footed tamarin EN 2 0.5 Aotus lemurinus Lemurine night monkey VU 1 0.2 Callithrix jacchus Common marmoset LC 1 0.2 Cebus imitator Panamanian white-faced capuchin LC 1 0.2 Cercocebus agilis Agile mangabey LC 1 0.2 Cercocebus galeritus Tana River mangabey EN 1 0.2 Cercopithecus campbelli Campbell’s monkey LC 1 0.2 Chlorocebus djamdjamensis Bale monkey VU 1 0.2 Colobus angolensis Angolan colobus LC 1 0.2 Colobus vellerosus White-thighed colobus VU 1 0.2 Daubentonia madagascariensis Aye-aye EN 1 0.2 Eulemur macaco Black lemur VU 1 0.2 Gorilla beringei Eastern gorilla EN 1 0.2 Hapalemur meridionalis Southern bamboo lemur VU 1 0.2 Hoolock leuconedys Eastern hoolock gibbon VU 1 0.2 Hylobates lar Lar gibbon EN 1 0.2 Hylobates moloch Moloch gibbon EN 1 0.2 Macaca cyclopis Taiwanese macaque LC 1 0.2 Macaca siberu Siberut macaque VU 1 0.2 Macaca silenus Lion-tailed macaque EN 1 0.2 Nycticebus bengalensis Bengal slow loris VU 1 0.2 Piliocolobus badius Upper Guinea red colobus EN 1 0.2 Piliocolobus pennantii Pennant’s red colobus EN 1 0.2 Presbytis comata Javan langur EN 1 0.2 Presbytis femoralis Banded langur NT 1 0.2 Presbytis hosei Hose’s langur DD 1 0.2 Presbytis siberu Siberut langur EN 1 0.2 Propithecus tattersalli Tattersall’s sifaka CR 1 0.2 Propithecus verreauxi Verreaux’s sifaka EN 1 0.2 Rungwecebus kipunji Kipunji CR 1 0.2 Saguinus bicolor Pied tamarin EN 1 0.2 Sapajus xanthosternos Yellow-breasted capuchin CR 1 0.2 Semnopithecus johnii Nilgiri langur VU 1 0.2 Tarsius tarsier Selayar tarsier VU 1 0.2 Trachypithecus auratus East Javan langur VU 1 0.2 aFor each publication, we recorded up to two focal primate species. Primate taxonomy follows the most recent taxonomic compilation of Estrada et al. (2017). The diversity of species in our dataset (N = 84 species) may be slightly underestimated because not all publications identified primates to species level and we did not compile species information for 44 publications (of the 427 in the dataset) that concerned >2 species. bIUCN Red List categories follow Estrada et al. (2017). LC = Least Concern; NT = Near Threatened; DD = Data Deficient; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR = Critically Endangered. The seven CR species in the dataset were crested macaque, Javan slow loris, Kipunji (highland mangabey), Sumatran mangabey, Tattersall’s sifaka, western gorilla, and yellow-breasted capuchin. c% Species records refers to the % representation of each species of the total number of publication records for individual species (N = 415). Table SII Primate genera (and number of focal species within each genus) featured in publications about primates in anthropogenic habitats, from a Web of ScienceTM literature search covering the period 1970 to December 7, 2016 (N = 427). Genera are listed alphabetically and in descending order of frequency in the dataset (number of publications).

Primate genus (no. of species)a No. of publications % Genus recordsb Macaca (17) 134 31.9 Papio (4) 56 13.3 Pan (1) 46 11.0 Alouatta (4) 24 5.7 Chlorocebus (4) 23 5.5 Semnopithecus (3) 18 4.3 Sapajus (4) 16 3.8 Callithrix (3) 11 2.6 Cercopithecus (4) 11 2.6 Pongo (2) 11 2.6 Lemur (1) 6 1.4 Piliocolobus (3) 6 1.4 Cebus (2) 5 1.2 Colobus (3) 5 1.2 Leontopithecus (1) 5 1.2 Presbytis (4) 5 1.2 Trachypithecus (2) 5 1.2 Gorilla (2) 4 1.0 Tarsius (2) 4 1.0 Erythrocebus (1) 3 0.7 Nycticebus (2) 3 0.7 Saguinus (2) 3 0.7 Theropithecus (1) 3 0.7 Cercocebus (2) 2 0.5 Eulemur (1) 2 0.5 Hylobates (2) 2 0.5 Propithecus (2) 2 0.5 Aotus (1) 1 0.2 Daubentonia (1) 1 0.2 Hapalemur (1) 1 0.2 Hoolock (1) 1 0.2 Rungwecebus (1) 1 0.2 aFor each publication, we recorded up to two focal primate genera (we did not compile this information for 36 publications that concerned more than two genera). Primate taxonomy follows Estrada et al. (2017).

b% Genus records refers to the % representation of each genus of the total number of publication records for individual genus in the dataset (N = 420); a single record was made for publications concerned with plural species of a genus.

Table SIII Primate families featured in publications about primates in anthropogenic habitats, from a Web of ScienceTM literature search covering the period 1970 to December 7, 2016 (N = 427). Families are listed in descending order of frequency in the dataset (number of publications).

Primate familya No. of publications % Family recordsb Cercopithecidae 267 63.0 Hominidae 71 16.7 Atelidae 25 5.9 Cebidae 22 5.2 Callitrichidae 16 3.8 Lemuridae 9 2.1 Tarsiidae 4 0.9 Hylobatidae 3 0.7 Lorisidae 3 0.7 Indriidae 2 0.5 Aotidae 1 0.2 Daubentoniidae 1 0.2 aFor each publication, we recorded up to two focal families (we did not compile this information for 20 publications concerning more than two primate families).

b% Family records refers to the % representation of each family of the total number of publication records for individual families in the dataset (N = 424); a single record was made for publications concerned with plural taxa within a family.

Reference

Estrada, A., Garber, P. A., Rylands, A. B., Roos, C., Fernandez-Duque, E., et al. (2017). Impending extinction crisis of the world’s primates: Why primates matter. Science Advances, 3, e1600946.